RE: [computer-go] Pattern matching - rectification & update

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Frank de Groot
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 0:10
> To: Chris Fant; computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - rectification & update
>
>
> I have an idea for tactical search.
>
> My problem is, I have no formal education to speak of and I am unable to
> understand anything with mathematics in it.
> I am therefore completely unable to understand all sophisticated
> algorithms/methods for search like Thomas uses.
> I simply don't understand anything of the publications.
>
> Now, the situation is that I am therefore forced to design my own tactical
> Go search algorithm.
> I have been working on that for a little while (of course after
> reading the
> literature to see what other systems are capable of, without understanding
> how it works).
>
> I can to the conclusion that even the best search methods are bad, for Go.
> The parts I do understand from search algo's used in tactical search in Go
> seem very illogical and inefficient to me.
> The entire premisse upon which such algorithms are built appear
> wrong to me.
> But that can very well be because I do not really understand the details.
> I do not see how current search methods can be very helpful in solving
> complex mid-game tactical Go situations.

Do you mean inefficient in algorithm, or inefficient in implementation?
Do you mean tactical in terms of life-and-death or tactical like in ladders,
geta, etc...?

> I look at it this way. People are all designing a better gun to kill an
> elephant with cotton balls.
> All the time there are improvements.
> "I made a triple-barreled hypersonic cotton ball gun that can kill a
> mid-sided elephant with just a million shots in half an hour" :)
>
> And all technological innovations lie in faster cotton balls and more
> barrels, whereas real progress would be: Using bullets.

Silver bullets you mean :-)

> So my goal is to emulate quite accurately how a human solves such
> situations.
> I think its silly to go though millions of nodes.

I agree, millions of nodes focus on quantity instead of quality. And I
consider Go to bemore of a qualitative game.

I think we came a long way of making a life-and-death module that does what
you're looking for. It was based on whole-board evaluation combined with
proof-number search. Simple problems would be solved in hundreds of nodes,
complex ones in thousands. To 'solve' carpenter-square took maybe
ten-thousand, but that even stumps your average 6d amateur.

> I am already pretty sure that it is possible to achieve this. Not just by
> intuition, but by design of alternative algo's on paper and
> calculating them
> through.
>
> I have always known this to be possible.
> It is one single, simple algorithm that is waiting to be discovered.

The search-algorithm is simple, the evaluation is not. But I agree it's
doable.

> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/